12.Ґxf6. This idea is tempting but Black has sufficient defensive resources. 12.0–0!? Ґe7 13.d5! was probably more promising – it was considered in the notes to the move 9...cd4.

12...Јxf6. 12...gxf6?! 13.0–0 was too suspicious for Black – all his pieces were passive while his king's pawn shield damaged.

13.¤b6. 13.0–0 Ґb4 was okay for Black. It might look like Black faces troubles but he's got a rather unexpected resource.

This logical move is not the best. 14...Ґb4! could have solved all the problems. White could do nothing with his knight stuck in the opponent's camp while Black simply continued his development by 0–0 and ¦f8xc8.

15.0–0 Јxc8. Black has collected the knight but it delayed his development and now White seizes initiative.

The line Black chose against QGA does not equalise and White has maintained the advantage. Black's knight was locked on the edge of the board, he found some tricky tactics to get counterplay but one inaccurate move has led to troubles. In this game I used many of Maxim's comments, which he gave in January 2007 when showing this game to the students of Boris Spassky's chess school in my home town Satka, Chelyabinsk region.

1.¤f3 d5 2.d4 ¤f6 3.c4 dxc4 4.e3 Ґg4. This approach reminds Slav Defence and it's not very popular since Black is often forced to part with his bishop or to retreat it to the passive position.

5.Ґxc4 e6 6.h3 Ґh5 7.¤c3 Ґe7. 7...¤bd7 is known to be more accurate.

8.g4 Ґg6 9.¤e5. White clearly shows his intentions to use an awkward position of Black's bishop by h3-h4-h5.

9...¤bd7 10.¤xg6 hxg6 11.g5

11...¤h5?! This logical retreat increases Black's problems – the knight is out of play on the edge of the board. He should have opted for 11...¤d5!? 12.¤xd5 exd5 13.Ґxd5 c6 14.Ґg2 Ґxg5 (or 14...Ґb4+ 15.ўf1 Јxg5 16.Јb3 (16.d5!?) 16...Јb5+ 17.ўg1) 15.0–0 0–0 16.f4 with better chances for White but here Black did not have such bad pieces.

12.h4 c6 13.Ґd2. White's task is just to complete development and find way to open the center or the Q-side, keeping Black's knight out of play.

13...e5!? Black does not want to wait, trying to get counterplay until White takes full control over the situation.

14.d5. A tempting 14.Јb3?! was met by 14...0–0! and 15.Јxb7 exd4 16.exd4 ¦b8 17.Јxc6 ¦xb2› let Black to get active play. The knight on h5 got a chance to come into play via f4-square while the g6-pawn was untouchable: 18.Јxg6? ¤e5!

16.dxc6 ¤xc4 (16...bxc6 17.0–0–0±) 17.cxb7?! A tempting but not the best – White missed his opponent's counterstrike. He should have restrained himself to 17.Јxc4! ¦c8 18.Јd5 ¦xc6 19.Јxd8 ¦xd8 20.ўe2± with a clear advantage as Black's knight had no chances to get into play.

17...¤xe3! A very strong resource, which not so only wins one pawn back as helps Black to release his locked knight. After 17...¤xd2? 18.bxa8Ј Јxa8 19.ўxd2! Black could not get real counter chances.

13...a5!? A new idea in this position – Black stops White's possible Q-side actions. By the way, we have seen a similar idea in the game Eljanov – Sorokin/RUS-chT Sochi 2005 or in the game Ponomariov – Rublevsky/Elista (m/1) 2007, when Maxim was Sergei Rublevsky's second. Both 13...0–0 14.a5 b5 15.¦ac1 Ґe7 16.¤e5, I.Sokolov – P.H.Nielsen, Malmoe 2004 and I.Sokolov – Van Wely, Villarrobledo 2006; and 13...Ґb7 14.a5 bxa5 15.¦xa5 I.Sokolov – Wells, London/Crowthorne 2006 let White to maintain small advantage.

33...ўe7 34.f4 f6 35.¦b2 ¤b8. Black could have also get advantage by 35...exf4! 36.b8Ј ¤xb8 37.¦xb8 ¦xa5 38.¦g8 f5! 39.¦xg7+ ўf6 40.¦xh7 fxe4µ but he did not want to give up his extra piece so easily. Yet, it was probably more promising way.

45.Ґd5?! A small inaccuracy. It seems that White could hold the position by 45.Ґf1 ¤b8 46.ўf5 ¤ac6 47.ўe6; or 45.Ґg8 h6 46.ўf5 ўb5 47.ўg6 ўxa6 48.g4 ўxb7 49.ўxg7 and it is hard to believe Black would play such position for a win.

45...¤b8 46.ўf5 ўd4!

47.ўe6? This is already a serious, maybe fatal mistake. White should have played 47.Ґg8 h5 48.h4 ¤xa6 49.ўg6, collecting both Black's pawns and getting connected passers.

The position is winning for Black. His task is to lock White's king in the corner with king and knight and then another knight comes to give mate. Here it's not so difficult as opponent's king is already cornered.

70.g5. Or 70.ўh3 ўf3 71.ўh2 ўf2 72.ўh3 ¤g5+ 73.ўh4 ¤5e6 74.g5 ўf3 and so on. 70...ўf3 71.ўh3 ¤g3 72.ўh2 ¤3f5 73.ўh3 ¤e7 74.ўh2 ¤xg6. This pawn can be taken. White can survive if he has far advanced pawn but his g5-passer does not bother Black much.

A transposition from Slav Defence to some kind of Catalan may promise advantage for White. Black has some options but approach, which Maxim Sorokin used to play is one of the most promising. A quick development of his Q-side pieces helps Black to stop a typical e2-e4 advance just in time and achieve a good play.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 c6 4.Јc2 ¤f6 5.¤bd2 ¤bd7 6.g3

Such order of moves gives White a chance to play the line 6.e4!? dxe4 7.¤xe4 ¤xe4 8.Јxe4 Ґb4+ 9.Ґd2 Ґxd2+ 10.¤xd2, which gives him some edge.

6...b6!? A very interesting approach – Black develops his Q-side first of all. Maxim introduced this idea to his friends many years ago and it served very well.

10.¤b3. Once I played this position and after 10.dxc5 produced 10...bxc5? after 50 minutes of thinking! To my excuse I can say that I just came to play this European Club match from the very tough round-robin tournament and was totally exhausted. I remembered Maxim adviced to capture with the pawn and our analysis proved that Black should be fine but here I just could not find the point of it – quite understandable since I just mixed different positions. Nevertheless, I trusted Maxim... to the pleasure of my opponent, who could not believe his eyes. The game Krasenkow – Scherbakov, EuroCup (m/1) Moscow 1991 continued 11.¤c4 Ґe7 12.¦d1 0–0 13.a3, and White has got a comfortable edge and convincingly converted it to a full point. By the way, on the next day in a second leg of our match one strange thing more happened. At one point Krasenkow resigned. I was certainly happy but could not completely understand why he did it in the worse but playable position. In fact I was already winning a whole piece...

10.e4 can be well met with 10...¤b4 with reasonable counter chances, Magerramov – Sorokin, Chelyabinsk 1991 – that was the tournament I came from to play the above-mentioned game.

A theory of the Slav Gambit was not well-developed in the pre-computer era and White sometimes refused to sacrifice a pawn – however, it couldn't promise real advantage. In this game Black comfortably equalised and then convincingly outplayed his opponent in the endgame.

This game has been played in one of the crucial matches between Russia and Ukraine at the Soviet Union junior team Championship. Maxim surprised his opponent with a rare continuation in a deep line of the Slav Gambit and scored a very important win with black pieces.

By the way, that day is also a nice memory for me since I also managed to score and also with black pieces. Other games have been drawn and so we have won the match with a decent score – this victory has almost secured an overall win in the competition.

Khomyakov,V (2380) – Sorokin,M (2570) D31

Katowice 1992

Maxim Sorokin's efforts increased popularity of the Noteboom variation. Here a tempting White's move turned out to be a serious mistake, which is well-known nowadays but to prove that Black had to sacrifice one of his K-side pawns with check, gaining huge positional pluses on the other side of the board.

16...¤xe5! This rather unexpected capture, which is well-known nowadays, gives better chances for Black.

17.dxe5 ¤d7 18.Ґxh7+ ўh8. Black sacrificed the pawn but now White's strong central pawns are harmless while Black's Q-side passers are ready to go with support of the powerful knight on c5.

19.Ґe4. White has also tried other options but in any case Black's play is rather simple – first of all the knight goes to c5, supporting the pawns, then he should take care about his king...

19...a4!? A small trick helps Black to advance the pawn without knight's support. 19...Ґxe4 20.Јxe4 ¤c5µ was also good.

20.Ґxb7 Јxb7

21.¦ad1?! This attempt to bother Black's king fails but White already needed a good advice. I also played this position once, the game Shneider – Scherbakov, Moscow INTEL (rapid) 1994 continued 21.f4 a3 22.Ґd4 b3 23.¦fb1 bxc2 24.¦xb7 ¦fb8, and here my opponent resigned. In addition to the lost position he was probably disappointed with a fact he had only 2 minutes left while I only spent 2 minutes out of 25. By the way, the pawn on a4 was untouchable: 21.¦xa4?? b3°; 21.¦fb1!? seemed to be the best chance to survive.

With white pieces Maxim often played slow, not too ambitious openings but his opponents never felt themselves comfortable. He could skilfully maintain a small advantage but when given a chance he could finish the game with direct attack, as his opponent experienced in this game.

One more example of Sorokin's successive playing the Catalan. One inaccuracy from the opponent's side was sufficient for White to create a very dangerous attack by rather unexpected pieces sacrifice...

16...¦fe8. In case of 16...Ґb4 White could have launched a direct attack by 17.¤xg7! (17.¤e4 Јxc4 was less clear in the game M.Horvath – Sukuba,1995) 17...ўxg7 18.¤e4 Јxc4 (18...Ґe7 19.Јd2ќ) 19.Јb1! gaining the piece back and maintaining strong initiative against opponent's king.

18...Ґd8. It was impossible to push White's queen away by 18...Јc5? because of 19.Јxd7ќ; but 18...Ґd6! was more tenacious: 19.Јg5+ ўf8 20.Јh6+ ўg8 21.Ґxf6 ¤xf6 22.Јxf6 Ґe5 23.Јg5+ ўh8 24.¦ab1 with a certain advantage but Black was still very much alive.